This is not a slam article. Get your panties out of a bunch and listen to what I have to say before you belittle my opinion as invalid and idiotic. I am merely giving suggestions that may improve the argument you use to defend Trump. This is in response to his current standing within the media and how his faults are being defended because of Hillary’s activities. I believe we should stop defending Trump with things Hillary has done. If he is to be defended, defend him without using Hillary. You're not proving that Trump is better, you're just proving that they're both shitty. Now, before you comment and slam my opinion into a fiery pit of acid, read what I have to say.

Here we go:

Many will argue that they didn't even want him to be the nominee.However, he is better than Hillary, and in this election that is all that matters. My problem with this is that it isn’t a good argument. There’s too many loopholes. It isn’t solid, and can easily be refuted.

Defending him in instances where he is obviously wrong doesn't serve for a good reputation of his voters. That's why they are being labeled so harshly, they are being branded in such a way because they are emanating the belief that the things he does and says are ok, which they aren't. If proper acknowledgement of his faults and reasonings as to why his good attributes outweigh those were to be discussed, it will prove more beneficial to the party itself.

Don't portray his beliefs if you don't agree with them. Counteract them in a reasonable way that highlights his better attributes. Pointing out shitty attributes in both candidates does nothing. Defending your candidate with "well she did this" doesn't make the candidate seem better, it just makes them seem equally shitty.

Maybe an example will better explain this phenomenon:

Just because one person broke a plate and said "well he broke a cup" doesn't make it okay that the plate is broken. It doesn't fix the plate.

In comparison it does not make it okay that Trump has said and did these things because Hillary did something too. Be fair and just. You can still support a candidate even if you acknowledge their faults, but emanating the belief that this behavior is okay is not tolerable. He was wrong in many instances, as was she. You do not need to defend him, you merely need to vote. Don't say that what he did was okay because Hillary did something too. They were both wrong. The plate and cup is still broken regardless of who broke what first.

The argument so many are using to defend him hold no true validity. You may think it is, but as I said before, it offers no evidence or support for him. If you truly want to persuade individuals that he is indeed the better candidate, then you need to highlight his better attributes, not her shitty ones.

But live and let die, I suppose. Although, perhaps you should look at good attributes of candidates and make decisions based on those. Then, maybe you could incorporate the good things into your argument. It would stand as much more believable. I'm just saying the arguments being used are not very good ones. They might be valid, but that doesn't mean they are good or prove a point. You're just pointing out crappy things that they both did. And yes, actually refusing to acknowledge his faults by saying "well she did this" is actually giving the implication that what he did was fine and should be overlooked because of something she did. If that is not the true intention, then I recommend more detail to clarify the statements being used.

If you do not agree with what he did, acknowledge it and then continue your argument for voting for him by discussing the ideas that you agree with and feel would make this country better. Voting on a president based on "less shittiness" isn't very good, especially for the country. Look at what each one will do. Stay current and focus on the direction you would like this country to move and which candidate agrees on your stance with foreign policy, education, social, and economical issues.

Also, insinuating that the choice is only between those two, isn't correct. Technically, there are two other options as well, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. They just aren't as popular and haven't received as much attention as the others, but you can still vote for them. I recommend going to isidewith.com and taking that test. Maybe it will allow you to see what candidates you truly agree with. It also helps develop your knowledge on other issues that are not widely discussed and create a stance on those.

Overall, find the good and when someone asks you why you're voting, don't base it on the other candidate, tell them why you think he is the better candidate. Explain the good things about him and explain that you agree with his stances and identify which stances those are. It will prove beneficial. If you’re going to defend Trump, do it at an intellectual level, or at least give it a decent shot.

We already have a broken cup and plate, don’t break the whole damn cupboard.